Adjudicating Authority Cannot Substitute Any Commercial Term Of Resolution Plan Approved By Committee Of Creditors: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that adjudicating authority cannot substitute any commercial term of the resolution plan approved by Committee of Creditors. If, within its limited jurisdiction, the Adjudicating Authority finds any shortcoming in the resolution plan vis-à-vis the specified parameters, it would only send the resolution plan back to the Committee of Creditors, for re-submission, the bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna said.The court observed thus while disposing a batch of cases relating to the resolution plan in the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, concerning the corporate debtor, Jaypee Infratech Limited. The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), in this case, had approved the resolution plan with some modifications.One of the issues considered by the Apex Court was about the extent of, and limitations over, the powers and jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority while dealing with the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditor? Regarding this, the bench referred to various precedents [ K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank and Ors.: (2019) 12 SCC 150 ; Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors.: (2020) 8 SCC 531 and Maharashtra Seamless Limited v. Padmanabhan Venkatesh : (2020) 11 SCC 467] and said:To put in a nutshell, the Adjudicating Authority has limited jurisdiction in the matter of approval of a resolution plan, which is well-defined and circumscribed by Sections 30(2) and 31 of the Code read with the parameters delineated by this Court in the decisions above referred. The jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority is also circumscribed by the limited grounds of appeal provided in Section 61 of the Code. In the adjudicatory process concerning a resolution plan under IBC, there is no scope for interference with the commercial aspects of the decision of the CoC; and there is no scope for substituting any commercial term of the resolution plan approved by the CoC. Within its limited jurisdiction, if the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, would find any shortcoming in the resolution plan vis-à-vis the specified parameters, it would only send the resolution plan back to the Committee of Creditors, for re-submission after satisfying the parameters delineated by Code and exposited by this Court.Regarding the other issues, the bench concluded thus:The process of simultaneous voting over two plans for electing one of them cannot be faulted in the present case; and approval of the resolution plan of NBCC is not vitiated because of simultaneous consideration and voting over two resolution plans by the Committee of Creditors. The stipulations in the resolution plan, as regards dealings with YEIDA and with the terms of Concession Agreement, have rightly not been approved by the Adjudicating Authority but, for the stipulations which have not been approved, the only correct course for the Adjudicating Authority was to send the plan back to the Committee of Creditors for reconsideration. The Adjudicating Authority has not erred in disapproving the proposed treatment of dissenting financial creditor like ICICI Bank Limited in the resolution plan; but has erred in modifying the related terms of the resolution plan and in not sending the matter back to the Committee of Creditors for reconsideration. The Adjudicating Authority has erred in issuing directions to the resolution applicant to make provision to clear the dues of unclaimed fixed deposit holders. Paragraph 125 of the impugned order dated 03.03.2020 is set aside.The issues related with the objections of YES Bank Limited and pertaining to JHL, the subsidiary of the corporate debtor JIL, are left 361 for resolution by the parties concerned, who will work out a viable solution in terms of paragraphs 141 and 142 of this judgment. In the overall scheme of the resolution plan, the stipulation in Clause 21 of Schedule 3 thereof cannot be said to be unfair; and the observations in paragraphs 132 and 133 of the order dated 03.03.2020 justly take care of the right of any aggrieved party (agreement holder) to seek remedy in accordance with law and ensures viability of the resolution plan. It cannot be said that the resolution plan does not adequately deal with the interests of minority shareholders. The grievances as suggested by the minority shareholders cannot be recognised as legal grievances. Their objections stand rejected. The homebuyers as a class having assented to the resolution plan of NBCC, any individual homebuyer or any association of homebuyers cannot maintain a challenge to the resolution plan and cannot be treated as a dissenting financial creditor or an aggrieved person; the question of violation of the provisions of the RERA does not arise; the resolution plan in question is not violative of the mandatory requirements of the CIRP Regulations; and when the resolution plan...

Adjudicating Authority Cannot Substitute Any Commercial Term Of Resolution Plan Approved By Committee Of Creditors: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Adjudicating Authority Cannot Substitute Any Commercial Term Of Resolution Plan Approved By Committee Of Creditors: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers